How the new US administration is approaching the Islam problem, by Brian Thomas.
There are two fundamental ways to view Islam in the West, and it is now clear those who hold to the “Islam is a religion of peace” view, which has held sway over the affairs of the West for so long, are fighting a desperate rear-guard action to remain in charge following Trump’s rise to power. …
It’s pretty clear that Trump himself, throughout his campaign and with his first appointments, completely rejects the old view of Muslims falling prey to a mass misunderstanding of a peaceful Islam. Michael Flynn rejected this view; that was clear from his many public pronouncements. Having him brought down by the shady leaking of supposedly sensitive gathered intelligence was a blow. …
Flynn’s replacement as national security adviser, General McMaster, is continuing to reaffirm the “Islam is a religion of peace” doctrine. …
The new point man for the Trump administration’s counter-jihadist team is Sebastian Gorka, who is on the Trump and Flynn side and regards the underlying ideology of Islam with deep suspicion. Now “they” are going after him.
The first shot came from Eli Clifton writing on an obscure blog concerning an old Hungarian medal Dr Gorka wore, which Clifton claimed was evidence of antisemitism from Gorka. An interesting claim from Clifton, who has written for the notorious Jew-hating site, Electronic Intifada. That charge was easily debunked, so a new charge was needed.
Up to the plate steps the New York Times, and this time they’re going for the jugular with the charge that Gorka is an “ill-informed Islamophobe”. …
The rest of the New York Times hit piece continues with an optimistic read-out of America’s supposedly huge success in dealing with the growing number of people who continue to misunderstand their peaceful “Abrahamic religion” and insist on blowing themselves and others up so regularly. …
Is the Cold War approach applicable to Islam? No, not really.
[Gorka] is entirely correct in comparing the fight against Marxist communism of that period to the present-day fight with Islamic jihad, but he should avoid being blindsided by the thinking of most Cold Warriors. These heroic patriots were hindered in their goal of establishing real liberty in Europe, for throughout the Cold War era, the fight was exclusively focused on the Marxist communism being spread by the USSR. Never was the European states’ so-called “democratic socialism” to be portrayed in a negative light, though socialism was the key identifying marker in Marxist theory. “Socialism light” was to be looked at through the fingers; the Cold Warriors couldn’t afford to anger their European allies.
We simply can’t afford the same mentality with Islam. Civilizational (or stealth) jihad is the key element driving Islam forward; violence is but a means in achieving that aim. Saying that we are at war with “radical Islam,” or that the terrorists are un-Islamic, in order not to offend our Muslim allies, brings us to the same dilemma faced by these Cold Warriors: yes, the Marxist empire imploded, but socialism still lives on in all of its destructive forms. We are still fighting it to this day.
We’re watching a titanic struggle for the future of the United States and the free world. If the U.S. can take a sane lead, perhaps Europe can be saved. One thing is for sure: the old guard and the New York Times will be running a fierce campaign of opposition to anyone who tells the truth.
hat-tip Scott of the Pacific
